Check Updates

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds specificity about what is checked (available updates and channel/auto-update settings), which is useful context. However, it does not go deeper (e.g., return format, any network implications, or conditions that might slow the call), so it adds some but not rich behavioral context beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every element ('available updates', 'settings', 'channel', 'auto-update') adds meaning, and there is no filler or repetition of the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple, has no parameters, and has clear annotations. The description fully explains its purpose and the type of information it retrieves, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. No output schema is present, but for a read-only check tool, this level of description is adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed. Per the rubric, a tool with no parameters gets a baseline of 4. The description compensates for the lack of schema coverage by explaining what the tool returns conceptually.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Check for' and names the exact resource ('Homey system updates') plus the specific aspects covered ('current update settings (channel, auto-update)'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which mention updates.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever the agent needs to check available updates or update settings. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but since no sibling tool covers updates, the context is unambiguous. A 5 would require explicit 'use this when' or 'instead of' language.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.